alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.24
 SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE
SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT BENEFITS AGREEMENT
 th
 Exhibit A
 Exhibit A Exhibit A
  IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE
  /s/ Darrell R. Rains
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Ronald L. ThigpenDARRELL R. RAINS
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Operating Officer




---



##### 



Exhibit A
SECOND AMENDMENT
      Year
    
    Limited BenefitJanuary 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009
    
    $
    7,200January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010
    
    $
    10,600January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011
    
    $
    16,182January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012
    
    $
    21,764January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013
    
    $
    27,345January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014
    
    $
    32,927January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015
    
    $
    38,509January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
    
    $
    44,091January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
    
    $
    49,673January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
    
    $
    55,255January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019
    
    $
    60,836January 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020
    
    $
    65,873October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020
    
    $
    68,818January 1, 2021 and thereafter
    
    $
    72,000
 Note 1:
    
    In the event of Executives voluntary termination prior to attaining age fifty-five (55),
this Limited Benefit is forfeited per Section 2(b) of this Agreement. DARRELL R. RAINS Exhibit A Exhibit A
 /s/ Darrell R. Rains
    
    03/02/10DARRELL R. RAINS
    
    Date this Exhibit Asigned
  2
# C_2008008EN.01002701.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/27

---

Action brought on 19 November 2007 — LIBRO v OHIM — Causley (LiBRO)

(Case T-418/07)

(2008/C 8/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Guntramsdorf, Austria) (represented by: G. Prantl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dagmar Causley (Pleidesheim, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 September 2007 (Case 1454/2005-4) and alter it so as to allow the applicant's appeal lodged with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and as a consequence to reject the objection in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 September 2007 (Case 1454/2005-4) and alter it so as to allow the applicant's appeal lodged with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and as a consequence to reject the objection in its entirety;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and any interveners jointly to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and any interveners jointly to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word and figurative mark ‘LiBRO’ for goods and services in classes 2, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 616 753).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dagmar Causley.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark ‘LIBERO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 401 141).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the application.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion of the opposing trade marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1336-E1337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           2012 OLYMPIC GAMES

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, over two thousand 
years ago, the

[[Page E1337]]

Greeks began a series of competitions that would develop into an 
international tradition of incredible scale. The Olympic Games serve as 
an opportunity to demonstrate athletic and mental ability, strength, 
and spirit for both individuals and nations. The Olympics bring 
millions of diverse people together, all with one hope: to see their 
country win. For our Nation, the Olympic Games help us to find our 
common ground and allow us to come together to support the young men 
and women who represent our great country.
  I am honored to recognize the outstanding individuals from Orange 
County that will represent our Nation this summer in London, England. 
For their patriotism and excellence in athletics, I'd like to recognize 
JW Kumpholz (Water Polo), Courtney Mathewson (Water Polo), Lauren 
Wenger (Water Polo), Samuel Mikulak (Gymnastics), Tyler Clary 
(Swimming), Kate Ziegler (Swimming), Russell Holmes (Volleyball), David 
Lee (Volleyball), Paul Lotman (Volleyball), David Smith (Volleyball), 
Donald Suxho (Volleyball), Brian Thorton (Volleyball), David McKienzie 
(Volleyball), Clay Stanley (Volleyball), Sean Rooney (Volleyball), 
Danielle Scott (Volleyball), Jordan Larson (Volleyball), Matt Anderson 
(Volleyball), and Reid Priddy (Volleyball). We are all proud of you.
  Thank you again, and good luck to each of you. Bring home the gold 
for Team U.S.A.

                          ____________________
```
18772

#### State v. Contreras

Affirmed
20765

#### Doe In Interest of

Affirmed
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 14, 2015

NO. 03

- 14

- 00556

- CV

Texan Pearl, LLC, Appellant

v.

Victoria Koegel, Joseph W. Koegel, Sarah Evans, and Thomas Evans, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW N O. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on June 18, 2014. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The appellant

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### UNITED STATES *of*America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leticia CALVILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41710.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 21, 2005.

*454James Lee Turner, Kathlyn Giannaula Snyder, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

L. Aron Pena, Law Offices of L. Aron Pena, Edinburg, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Leticia Calvillo appeals her guilty-plea conviction and sentence for transporting illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a). Calvillo argues that trial counsel was ineffective because he advised her to sign a plea agreement that waived any right she had to have facts used in calculating her sentence charged in the indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. She argues that, given the legal landscape at the time of her plea, counsel should not have let her agree to this waiver in the plea agreement and that he should have objected at the sentencing hearing to the mandatory aspect of the sentencing guidelines and to the enhancements under the guidelines that were used to calculate her sentence. Finally, she argues that her sentence violated *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because it was enhanced based upon facts not proven to a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The general rule in this circuit is that claims of ineffective assistance will not be considered on direct appeal “when, as here, it was not raised in the district court, because there has been no opportunity to develop record evidence on the merits of the claim.” *United States v. Lampazianie,*251 F.3d 519, 527 (5th Cir.2001); *see also Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). We conclude that a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 would be preferable to direct appeal for deciding Calvillo’s claim of ineffective assistance. *455
      *See Massaro,*538 U.S. at 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690.

Calvillo argues that the exception to her appeal waiver for upward departures applies to her *Booker*argument because the district court’s finding that she transported 10 aliens increased her guidelines range, thereby constituting a departure. We have previously rejected a similar argument. *See United States v. McKinney,*406 F.3d 744, 746-747 (5th Cir.2005).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
S. 1090 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

to provide eligibility for broadcasting facilities to receive certain disaster assistance, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Information Improvement Act of 2015’’. 

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF BROADCASTING FACILITIES FOR CERTAIN DISASTER ASSISTANCE. 

(a) PRIVATE NONPROFIT FACILITY DEFINED.—Section 102(11)(B) 

of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(11)(B)) is amended by inserting ‘‘broadcasting 

facilities,’’ after ‘‘workshops,’’. 

(b) CRITICAL SERVICES DEFINED.—Section 406(a)(3)(B) of the 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

(42 U.S.C. 5172(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘communications,’’ 

and inserting ‘‘communications (including broadcast and telecommunications),’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Ann Zanotta et al., Respondents, v Haughton Elevator Company, a Division of Reliance Electric Company, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Otis Elevator, Inc., Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from that part of an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered July 10, 1990 in Albany County, which denied a cross motion by defendant Otis Elevator, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking recovery for per-, sonal injuries allegedly sustained in an elevator accident occurring in Building No. 5 at the State Office Campus in Albany County in November 1985. The incident involved plaintiff Ann Zanotta’s attempt to enter the elevator at which time the door allegedly closed upon her, causing injury to her back and shoulder area. The complaint initially alleged defects in the elevator doors due to the negligent design, manufacture, installation and maintenance of the elevators by what is now known as defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation. An amended complaint subsequently added defendant Otis Elevator, Inc., the company that serviced the elevator from June 1982 through November 1987 pursuant to a contract with the State. Both Schindler and Otis eventually moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims against them. Supreme Court granted Schindler summary judgment but denied Otis’ cross motion, concluding that plaintiffs "submitted circumstantial evidence of sufficient probative force to raise a triable issue of fact as to Otis Elevator’s negligent maintenance and repair of the subject elevator”. Otis now appeals.

We affirm. "An elevator company which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found” *(Rogers v Dorchester Assocs.,*32 NY2d 553, 559 [citations omitted]). Here, plaintiffs’ papers in opposition to Otis’ cross motion, which included proof of previous accidents and alleged verbal reports to repairers of elevator defects, were sufficient to raise triable issues of fact regarding Otis’ alleged negligence in maintaining the elevator in question *(see, supra).*Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied.

*450Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10(b)(4)

                                FOURTH AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                         ICF KAISER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                         EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN



     WHEREAS, the ICF Kaiser International, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") was established effective as of March 1,
1987, by ICF Kaiser International, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the
"Company"); and

     WHEREAS, effective as of March 1, 1994, the Plan was frozen so that no
individual became a Participant, and no Plan contributions were made, after
February 28, 1994; and

     WHEREAS, the Plan was most recently restated as of January 1, 1998; and

     WHEREAS, the restated Plan was amended subsequently on three occasions; and

     WHEREAS, the Company  desires to amend the Plan again;

     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of April 7, 1999, unless specifically provided
otherwise, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth.

     1.   The first sentence of Paragraph (a) of Section 8.3 of the Plan is
hereby amended to provide as follows:

               (a)  General Rule.  If a Participant Retires under Plan, dies,
                    ------------
          Separates from Service due to the sale of the Environment and
          Facilities Management Group of the Company or the sale by the Company
          of the majority of its capital stock of ICF Consulting Group, Inc. to
          ICF Consulting Group Holdings, LLC or any other unrelated entity, or
          Separates from Service for any other reason, the entire vested balance
          of his Account shall be distributed pursuant to the provisions of this
          Section 8.3 and Section 8.5.

     2.   The third sentence of Paragraph (a) of Section 8.3 of the Plan is
hereby amended by the deletion of the phrase ", or at any time exceeded".
<PAGE>

     3.  Paragraph (c) of Section 9.3 of the Plan is hereby amended by the
deletion of the word "Trustee's" and the substitution of the word "Company's" in
place thereof.

          Executed this 25th day of June, 1999.

                            ICF KAISER INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                            By: /s/ Timothy P. O'Connor
                               ---------------------------------

                            And: Senior Vice President and
                                --------------------------------
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                --------------------------------

                                       2
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1007 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 621
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1007

                          [Report No. 114-346]

   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
rename a site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 20, 2015

Mr. Portman (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                           September 8, 2016

 Reported by Ms. Murkowski, without amendment and with an amendment to 
                               the title

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
rename a site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE DAYTON AVIATION HERITAGE PRESERVATION ACT 
              OF 1992.

    Section 101(b)(5) of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act 
of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 410ww(b)(5)) is amended by striking ``Aviation 
Center'' and inserting ``National Museum''.
            Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the Dayton 
        Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and for other 
        purposes.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 621

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1007

                          [Report No. 114-346]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to 
rename a site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 8, 2016

     Reported without amendment and with an amendment to the title
```
#### Engler, Appellant, *v.*Engler, Appellee.

(No. 31862

Decided April 26, 1950.)

*460
      *Mr. J. G. Hitchcock,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Rupp & Hahn,*for appellee.

By the Court.

Counsel for Mrs. Engler contends that the present appeal involves the question whether the dismissal of a petition for divorce and property division on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty, for lack of proof of those grounds or corroboration thereof, is *res judicata*of a subsequent action for alimony on the ground of separation caused by ill treatment.

The record in the instant case is insufficient to present that question.

The statement in lieu of a bill of exceptions recites that at the trial in the Court of Common Pleas counsel for plaintiff “made his opening statement in which he disclosed that plaintiff based her action upon defendant’s treatment of her prior to June 26, 1942, or thereabouts, the date of the parties’ separation, as in the pleadings alleged and admitted. ’ ’ Thereupon counsel for defendant asked leave of court to then introduce into evidence in support of the defense of *res judicata*the pleadings, opinions and entries of the court in the aforestated cases instituted in 1941 and 1943. The requested leave was granted and the exhibits were offered and received in evidence.

The record does not show that counsel for Mrs. Engler made proffer of any evidence to support the allegations of her petition for alimony.

The journal entry of the Court of Common Pleas states, in substance, that plaintiff having offered no *461evidence of any acts of the defendant occurring subsequent to June 26,1942, the admitted date of separation of the parties, and there having been received in evidence the aforestated documents filed in the two preceding cases both of which were dismissed, the court excluded all testimony and evidence of acts of the defendant occurring prior to June 26,1942, on the ground of *res judicata,*and dismissed the petition on the ground there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim.

The plaintiff having failed to introduce or make-proffer of evidence to support the allegations of her petition, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing the petition.

*Judgment*affirmed,

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
# C_2008079EN.01002801.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/28

---

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Enercon v OHIM — Hasbro (ENERCON)

(Case T-472/07)

(2008/C 79/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hasbro Inc. (Pawtucket, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | That the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2007 in Case R 959/2006-4 be annulled insofar as it dismissed the appeal of Enercon GmbH against the decision of the opposition division of 26 May 2006 ruling on opposition No B 763 666; |
| --- | --- |

—

That the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2007 in Case R 959/2006-4 be annulled insofar as it dismissed the appeal of Enercon GmbH against the decision of the opposition division of 26 May 2006 ruling on opposition No B 763 666;

| — | that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is to be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ENERCON’ for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28 and 32 — Application No 3 326 031

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hasbro Inc.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’ for goods in classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30 and 32 — Application No 3 152 121 as well as the earlier non-registered marks ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’ and ‘ENERGON’

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---